Is our faith the only thing that is not protected

LeftSheepRight · 03-12-2019 7:52pm #1

I am a Christian. Today I was subject to some religious bigotry on boards and my first instinct was to remove myself from the situation in order to avoid confrontation. I don’t want to go into details as that’s not what this thread is about but my question is, is religious faith the only thing that people can still make fun of and be bigoted about?

I ask because the action against me was brushed off as humour, but if the word Christian had been replaced with gay or black and the same situation played out it wouldn’t be.

If faced with bigotry should we face up to it or avoid like I tried to do and then us be the ones suffer the consequences while the bigot has no actions. Just doesn’t seem fair to me.

antiskeptic · 04-12-2019 1:30am

LeftSheepRight wrote: »

I am a Christian. Today I was subject to some religious bigotry on boards and my first instinct was to remove myself from the situation in order to avoid confrontation. I don’t want to go into details as that’s not what this thread is about but my question is, is religious faith the only thing that people can still make fun of and be bigoted about?

I ask because the action against me was brushed off as humour, but if the word Christian had been replaced with gay or black and the same situation played out it wouldn’t be.

If faced with bigotry should we face up to it or avoid like I tried to do and then us be the ones suffer the consequences while the bigot has no actions. Just doesn’t seem fair to me.

Bigotry lies in the eye of the beholder. If there is a societal shift which sees some things as bigotry and some things not then thats not unusual. There was a time and place when Christianity ruled the roost and various people of colour didn't. People of colour suffered bigotry, Christians didn't.

I'd let it roll off you. If you don't appreciate that you will be attacked for your faith. And don't think it ought to be expected then you might be best to stay away.

LeftSheepRight · 04-12-2019 10:32am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Bigotry lies in the eye of the beholder. If there is a societal shift which sees some things as bigotry and some things not then thats not unusual. There was a time and place when Christianity ruled the roost and various people of colour didn't. People of colour suffered bigotry, Christians didn't.

I'd let it roll off you. If you don't appreciate that you will be attacked for your faith. And don't think it ought to be expected then you might be best to stay away.

I understand i may be attacied, my question is when that haopens equality should prevail. Quoting the past to decide the future is wrong. Everyone should be equal, no?

santana75 · 04-12-2019 6:40pm

LeftSheepRight wrote: »

I am a Christian. Today I was subject to some religious bigotry on boards and my first instinct was to remove myself from the situation in order to avoid confrontation. I don’t want to go into details as that’s not what this thread is about but my question is, is religious faith the only thing that people can still make fun of and be bigoted about?

I ask because the action against me was brushed off as humour, but if the word Christian had been replaced with gay or black and the same situation played out it wouldn’t be.

If faced with bigotry should we face up to it or avoid like I tried to do and then us be the ones suffer the consequences while the bigot has no actions. Just doesn’t seem fair to me.

I wouldnt worry about it at all. In fact I'd take it as a positive thing. Jesus himself said that you would be persecuted because you believed in him. Paul said it is a great Honor to suffer for Christ. So you are actually in a position of privilege to suffer for your faith in God. I wouldnt engage in online arguments though, you'll only frustrate yourself and get tied in knots. Besides quarreling, antagonism, circular debates.......these are things Paul told us to avoid, they are the fruits of our sinful nature, not the fruit of the spirit. Dont forget what it says in 2 Corinthians 14-18

"But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit".

Whenever anyone turns to the Lord the veil is taken away. So you are arguing with people whos minds and hearts have been covered with a veil. The only thing that can remove this veil is the word of God. So unless they're willing to read the word of God and listen to the word of God, then they will not understand what youre saying. Not only not understand, but they will be hostile towards what you say. Besides if you read what Jesus said about what would precede his second coming you'll see clearly that there will be great persecution of believers. Everything in the world is ok, except for the Gospel. Thats the current state of the world and it was all predicted to be that way. So dont worry, everything is happening as it should.

antiskeptic · 07-12-2019 7:34pm

LeftSheepRight wrote: »

I understand i may be attacied, my question is when that haopens equality should prevail. Quoting the past to decide the future is wrong. Everyone should be equal, no?

I don't see why equality should prevail. You live in a fallen world. Inequality is what should be expected to prevail in a fallen world.

Your not equal. You are a target.

antiskeptic · 07-12-2019 7:39pm

santana75 wrote: »

I wouldnt worry about it at all. In fact I'd take it as a positive thing. Jesus himself said that you would be persecuted because you believed in him. Paul said it is a great Honor to suffer for Christ. So you are actually in a position of privilege to suffer for your faith in God. I wouldnt engage in online arguments though, you'll only frustrate yourself and get tied in knots. Besides quarreling, antagonism, circular debates.......these are things Paul told us to avoid, they are the fruits of our sinful nature, not the fruit of the spirit. Dont forget what it says in 2 Corinthians 14-18

"But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit".

Whenever anyone turns to the Lord the veil is taken away. So you are arguing with people whos minds and hearts have been covered with a veil. The only thing that can remove this veil is the word of God. So unless they're willing to read the word of God and listen to the word of God, then they will not understand what youre saying. Not only not understand, but they will be hostile towards what you say. Besides if you read what Jesus said about what would precede his second coming you'll see clearly that there will be great persecution of believers. Everything in the world is ok, except for the Gospel. Thats the current state of the world and it was all predicted to be that way. So dont worry, everything is happening as it should.

Why would someone read what for them is a dull as ditchwater tomb. Like, try to wade through Numbers. Or some tale about a guy turning water into wine?

Being unwilling to read that is the same unwillingness you might have in reading any dull to you book.

The unwillingness is understandable. Could someone be condemned for being found unwilling to read what they think of as a boring fairytale?

Hardly.

Nika Bolokov · 08-12-2019 11:05am

There is certainly an aggressive approach to any professed Christianity.

I recently read the little book of catholic prayer by David Boyd and a book of latin prayer, the spiritually and depth in christian writing does not warrant the hate it attracts.

smacl · 08-12-2019 2:14pm

Nika Bolokov wrote: »

There is certainly an aggressive approach to any professed Christianity.

I recently read the little book of catholic prayer by David Boyd and a book of latin prayer, the spiritually and depth in christian writing does not warrant the hate it attracts.

I rather doubt it is the spiritually and depth in christian writing that is attracting the criticism though. More likely the abuses and ensuing cover ups carried out by the church, the antiquated notions of sexuality that by many are considered misogynistic and homophobic and the never end attempts to foist their religious beliefs on others.

Do you consider the above paragraph an attack on your faith?

antiskeptic · 08-12-2019 10:49pm

Nika Bolokov wrote: »

There is certainly an aggressive approach to any professed Christianity.

I thought I'd bolded the section I was responding to. Here it is:

"The only thing that can remove this veil is the word of God. So unless they're willing to read the word of God and listen to the word of God, then they will not understand what youre saying. Not only not understand, but they will be hostile towards what you say."

To which my response. Why would anyone read what to them is a dull, boring fairytale? "So unless they're willing" doesn't deal with the perfectly sound reasons they have for not being willing.

I recently read the little book of catholic prayer by David Boyd and a book of latin prayer, the spiritually and depth in christian writing does not warrant the hate it attracts.

Its auto-hate. It doesn't consider things. It just sees 'Christian' or 'Catholic' and fires from the hip.

santana75 · 09-12-2019 7:03pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why would someone read what for them is a dull as ditchwater tomb. Like, try to wade through Numbers. Or some tale about a guy turning water into wine?

Being unwilling to read that is the same unwillingness you might have in reading any dull to you book.

The unwillingness is understandable. Could someone be condemned for being found unwilling to read what they think of as a boring fairytale?

Hardly.

I'd encourage you to read that passage of scripture again. The veil has been drawn over your mind so you cant actually get whats been said, thats why you think the Bible is dull. But if you're open and put aside all the "Dull as dishwater" arguments, then you'll be able to really understand the word of God. But so long as you're more concerned with arguing and trying to rationalize things you'll never get it. You wont be permitted to. Heres what Jesus said about that:

"At that time Jesus prayed this prayer: “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike."

The Bible is the most amazing and exciting book ever written. But again, to those who arent open and childlike, they'll not get it at all.

antiskeptic · 10-12-2019 9:23am

santana75 wrote: »

I'd encourage you to read that passage of scripture again. The veil has been drawn over your mind so you cant actually get whats been said, thats why you think the Bible is dull. But if you're open and put aside all the "Dull as dishwater" arguments, then you'll be able to really understand the word of God. But so long as you're more concerned with arguing and trying to rationalize things you'll never get it. You wont be permitted to. Heres what Jesus said about that:

"At that time Jesus prayed this prayer: “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike."

The Bible is the most amazing and exciting book ever written. But again, to those who arent open and childlike, they'll not get it at all.

Your last point is my point. The reason someone isn't willing to read is they aren't open and childlike. They have to become that, then it will be exciting.

So there is no sense in saying 'if only someone was willing' when that could be said of anything the person isn't interested in doing.

Assuming you weren't interested in lawn green bowling and somebody said if only you were willing and open to its joys, you too would find it exciting. Would you take up lawn green bowling? Hardly.

The Bible appears dull just as lawn green bowling appears dull.

I'm a Christian, btw. I'm just making a point from the perspective of someone who isn't (and someone who got as far as Number when I first picked up the Bible, before falling asleep with boredom.)

DavyD_83 · 10-12-2019 9:34am

If somebody told you they worshipped Ra and planned to bury their butler alive with them when they die so that he can continue to serve them in the afterlife.
Would you respect their belief?

Why are modern religious beliefs any different to those now deemed to be based on myths?

antiskeptic · 10-12-2019 2:46pm

DavyD_83 wrote: »

If somebody told you they worshipped Ra and planned to bury their butler alive with them when they die so that he can continue to serve them in the afterlife.
Would you respect their belief?

Why are modern religious beliefs any different to those now deemed to be based on myths?

Are they deemed to be myths? By who, if not those who hold modern religious* beliefs.

*where religion is defined as "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion". Naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe and the ascent of man are followed with great devotion. Indeed, man's god (the one who created him) are constructed of philosophies pointing to materialistic, naturalistic origins.

santana75 · 10-12-2019 7:42pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your last point is my point. The reason someone isn't willing to read is they aren't open and childlike. They have to become that, then it will be exciting.

So there is no sense in saying 'if only someone was willing' when that could be said of anything the person isn't interested in doing.

Assuming you weren't interested in lawn green bowling and somebody said if only you were willing and open to its joys, you too would find it exciting. Would you take up lawn green bowling? Hardly.

The Bible appears dull just as lawn green bowling appears dull.

I'm a Christian, btw. I'm just making a point from the perspective of someone who isn't (and someone who got as far as Number when I first picked up the Bible, before falling asleep with boredom.)

Ok I didnt know you were playing Devils advocate.........what I've noticed is that people who claim the Bible is Dull, hateful, judgemental etc, are the people who havent actually sat down and read the Bible. Its a choice, thats why God gave everyone free will. You can read the word of God or you can do other things. For me personally what drew me to read the Bible was from reading other books that had some scripture quoted in them. They were mainstream books but they would mention God. And the scripture they quoted I had to admit, it was good. So from there I found a Bible study group and from there I would read it for myself. The more I read it the more I realised that it was a lot different than what I had been led to believe it was. So I think for people who have an idea of what the Bible is about I think the only way theyre gonna bother to start reading it with an open mind and heart is if God himself prompts them to. Looking back at my own case, he was definitely prodding me in the right direction all along. But I suppose then you're getting into another issue entirely, who are God's chosen people? Who are the ones he's called and who are the ones he hasnt? Does everyone have an equal chance at salvation or is the deck loaded?

antiskeptic · 11-12-2019 9:21am

santana75 wrote: »

Ok I didnt know you were playing Devils advocate.........what I've noticed is that people who claim the Bible is Dull, hateful, judgemental etc, are the people who havent actually sat down and read the Bible. Its a choice, thats why God gave everyone free will. You can read the word of God or you can do other things. For me personally what drew me to read the Bible was from reading other books that had some scripture quoted in them. They were mainstream books but they would mention God. And the scripture they quoted I had to admit, it was good. So from there I found a Bible study group and from there I would read it for myself. The more I read it the more I realised that it was a lot different than what I had been led to believe it was. So I think for people who have an idea of what the Bible is about I think the only way theyre gonna bother to start reading it with an open mind and heart is if God himself prompts them to. Looking back at my own case, he was definitely prodding me in the right direction all along. But I suppose then you're getting into another issue entirely, who are God's chosen people? Who are the ones he's called and who are the ones he hasnt? Does everyone have an equal chance at salvation or is the deck loaded?

I think the latter half of your post clarifies the former half.You had reason to pick up the the bible. You weren't self-moving from a standing start - you were being 'prodded' like you say.

It was the same for me. Seemingly off my own bat but in retrospect,a prodding or a being drawn into the magnetic field of God

But outside that, the bible is dull and irrelevant. Man is blind to it. Its only by being made alive or prodded along does it come alive in the hand.

There is no reason for someone blind to wade through that which they can't see. I can see why they'd hold the view they hold. Ask an average Christian how they reconcile God as Jesus with a God who slays nations wholesale and they struggle. Put it this way, I've heard Sunday sermons which might weave in OT elements. I can't say I recall one dealing directly with God thrashing nations in seemingly ethinic cleansing fashion.

.

For myself I don't hold that people are chosen to be prodded (and others not). The 'choosing/predestining' passages can be read (indeed must be, I think) as God choosing what to do with folk named 'us'. The 'us' referred to are Christians.

So, God choose that us-in-him (a.k.a.Christians) to be made holy and righteous in his sight and the like.

Rather than God choose/predestined some to be made Christians in the first place, per the Calvinist view.

Cabaal · 11-12-2019 1:59pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are they deemed to be myths?

Yes, very much so.
The vast majority of people on the planet including basically 99.99% of catholic and Christians see them as myths and just stories and that Ra does not actually exist....unless you think they believe in a christian god and a non christian god?

Do you think the sun god RA is real?
If you do then I have some leprechaun gold you might be interested in....

antiskeptic · 11-12-2019 10:06pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes, very much so.
The vast majority of people on the planet including basically 99.99% of catholic and Christians see them as myths and just stories and that Ra does not actually exist....unless you think they believe in a christian god and a non christian god?

Do you think the sun god RA is real?
If you do then I have some leprechaun gold you might be interested in....

The context was modern religious beliefs (such as materialism) and the old stuff (such as Christianity). The old being considered myths.

Cabaal · 12-12-2019 11:04am

antiskeptic wrote: »

The context was modern religious beliefs (such as materialism) and the old stuff (such as Christianity). The old being considered myths.

Actually the comment you replied to was:

If somebody told you they worshipped Ra and planned to bury their butler alive with them when they die so that he can continue to serve them in the afterlife.
Would you respect their belief?

Why are modern religious beliefs any different to those now deemed to be based on myths?

I don't see any mention of Christianity being referred to as old stuff above, do you?

The myth being referred to was clearly somebody worshipping the sun god Ra.
Unless you think Christian's worship the sun god Ra? :pac::pac::pac:

But if you want to compare modern and more ancient religions then Ra as a god is a far far older god then christian god, after all they date from 24th and 25th century BCE. By comparison Christian is very much a modern religion.

By please do continue to twist the post, ignote what it was actually about and to try claim it was actually saying materialism is a religion
:rolleyes:

Yellow_Fern · 14-12-2019 12:48pm

LeftSheepRight wrote: »

I understand i may be attacied, my question is when that haopens equality should prevail. Quoting the past to decide the future is wrong. Everyone should be equal, no?

Equality is mostly a meaning less slogan and very few actual commit to the value even whe it doesnt suit them.

Yellow_Fern · 14-12-2019 12:53pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Actually the comment you replied to was:

I don't see any mention of Christianity being referred to as old stuff above, do you?

The myth being referred to was clearly somebody worshipping the sun god Ra.
Unless you think Christian's worship the sun god Ra? :pac::pac::pac:

But if you want to compare modern and more ancient religions then Ra as a god is a far far older god then christian god, after all they date from 24th and 25th century BCE. By comparison Christian is very much a modern religion.

By please do continue to twist the post, ignote what it was actually about and to try claim it was actually saying materialism is a religion
:rolleyes:

Why does the age of the religion have any baring on its truthfulness? If the religion is derived through philosophy reasoning and revelation age has no bearing. It gnaws my soul how many atheists dont understand the genetic fallacy.

smacl · 14-12-2019 5:17pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Why does the age of the religion have any baring on its truthfulness? If the religion is derived through philosophy reasoning and revelation age has no bearing. It gnaws my soul how many atheists dont understand the genetic fallacy.

It is not so much the age of the religion as the progress of human understanding. Philosophy, reason and revelation (in the sense of our understanding of the universe in which we live) have come on a bit in the last 2,000 years. If you consider biblical stories such as the age of the Earth, humankind all being direct descendants of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark, there was no hard evidence to indicate they couldn't be literally true until relatively recently. Today we know better.

Yellow_Fern · 14-12-2019 6:02pm

smacl wrote: »

It is not so much the age of the religion as the progress of human understanding. Philosophy, reason and revelation (in the sense of our understanding of the universe in which we live) have come on a bit in the last 2,000 years. If you consider biblical stories such as the age of the Earth, humankind all being direct descendants of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark, there was no hard evidence to indicate they couldn't be literally true until relatively recently. Today we know better.

Sounds like you are agreeing with me so. Newer is better, although you still think its still too old to be valid.

Whether or not Genesis is literal is a very different and unrelated point but I will Augustine famously taught that the six days described in Genesis was not literal and he lived over 1500 years ago. A non literal understanding of Genesis is a refinement of Christianity, not a fall back position.

smacl · 14-12-2019 6:20pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Sounds like you are agreeing with me so. Newer is better, although you still think its still too old to be valid.

Whether or not Genesis is literal is a very different and unrelated point but I will Augustine famously taught that the six days described in Genesis was not literal and he lived over 1500 years ago. A non literal understanding of Genesis is a refinement of Christianity, not a fall back position.

Insofar as a genetic fallacy is a perfectly reasonable fallacy, yes, I agree. I'm not even sure that newer is necessarily better for reason of age alone. Newer is moire likely better because it brings with it some refinement, improvement or other significant value beyond novelty.

Taking a stance that biblical stories are not literally true, but rather allegorically so as a matter of faith, is most definitely a refinement in my opinion. That said, as an atheist myself, I've no problem whatsoever with anyone else saying "this is what I choose to believe". Similarly I've no problem with someone's actions being a function of their religious belief. The occasion where a problem arises is when someone tells me that their religious beliefs should be allowed dictate my actions, or that my beliefs are invalid because they're contradictory to their beliefs.

Yellow_Fern · 14-12-2019 6:26pm

smacl wrote: »

Insofar as a genetic fallacy is a perfectly reasonable fallacy, yes, I agree. I'm not even sure that newer is necessarily better for reason of age alone. Newer is moire likely better because it brings with it some refinement, improvement or other significant value beyond novelty.

Taking a stance that biblical stories are not literally true, but rather allegorically so as a matter of faith, is most definitely a refinement in my opinion. That said, as an atheist myself, I've no problem whatsoever with anyone else saying "this is what I choose to believe". Similarly I've no problem with someone's actions being a function of their religious belief. The occasion where a problem arises is when someone tells me that their religious beliefs should be allowed dictate my actions, or that my beliefs are invalid because they're contradictory to their beliefs.

I hope you are a libertarian then. It is the only solution of this problem.

smacl · 14-12-2019 6:46pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I hope you are a libertarian then. It is the only solution of this problem.

More secularist, in the sense of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I don't have an issue with authority once it derives from consensus, so hardly libertarian. You?

Yellow_Fern · 15-12-2019 9:08am

smacl wrote: »

More secularist, in the sense of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I don't have an issue with authority once it derives from consensus, so hardly libertarian. You?

The problem is sooner or later a theocratic or secular society arrives at a consensus that jars with your own brand of secular values. The solution is not to keep religion out of gov, it is to morality out of gov full stop. This isnt a hypothetical. There are all sorts of examples.

Dick_Swiveller · 15-12-2019 9:54am

LeftSheepRight wrote: »

I am a Christian. Today I was subject to some religious bigotry on boards and my first instinct was to remove myself from the situation in order to avoid confrontation. I don’t want to go into details as that’s not what this thread is about but my question is, is religious faith the only thing that people can still make fun of and be bigoted about?

I ask because the action against me was brushed off as humour, but if the word Christian had been replaced with gay or black and the same situation played out it wouldn’t be.

If faced with bigotry should we face up to it or avoid like I tried to do and then us be the ones suffer the consequences while the bigot has no actions. Just doesn’t seem fair to me.

I wouldn't worry about it too much OP. I don't think Boards' atheists/Dawkins acolytes are very representative of the general public in Ireland.

I've never come across these angry, spiteful, mean spirited people in my day to day life - and hope I never do.

My advice would be not to bother engaging with an online atheist mob. They'll soon resort to mockery and ad hominem and it will just cause frustration on your part.

Sleeper12 · 15-12-2019 10:14am

LeftSheepRight wrote: »

I am a Christian. Today I was subject to some religious bigotry on boards and my first instinct was to remove myself from the situation in order to avoid confrontation. I don’t want to go into details as that’s not what this thread is about but my question is, is religious faith the only thing that people can still make fun of and be bigoted about?

I ask because the action against me was brushed off as humour, but if the word Christian had been replaced with gay or black and the same situation played out it wouldn’t be.

If faced with bigotry should we face up to it or avoid like I tried to do and then us be the ones suffer the consequences while the bigot has no actions. Just doesn’t seem fair to me.

I see a huge difference between someone believing something that may or may not be true & something that is factual. Race, sexuality etc are facts. It's easier to protect these peoples rights. There are no facts to back up Flat earthers, anti vaxers & people of faith. If a child hits 13 & still believes in Santa should the adults not have a right to go against the childs beliefs & tell them the truth?

I read a thread on boards & the poster stated as fact that gay people can be converted or normalized. I was stunned that this post would be left but it was

Sorry for lumping people of faith in with flat earters & anti vaxers. This wasn't intended to belittle your beliefs.

Bottom line is there isn't enough respect in the world. I respect your right to believe in god, unfortunately plenty of people with faith think its ok to preach religion to me. This I have a problem with. If you want to tell me that Jesus loves me, you can expect me to challenge you on it. Keep your beliefs to yourself is the best option imo

15-12-2019 10:18am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why would someone read what for them is a dull as ditchwater tomb. Like, try to wade through Numbers. Or some tale about a guy turning water into wine?

Being unwilling to read that is the same unwillingness you might have in reading any dull to you book.

The unwillingness is understandable. Could someone be condemned for being found unwilling to read what they think of as a boring fairytale?

Hardly.

I read it, load of what you would expect from uneducated bronze age sheep herders

(which has been rewritten/truncated by vested interests several times)

theological · 15-12-2019 10:25am

smacl wrote: »

It is not so much the age of the religion as the progress of human understanding. Philosophy, reason and revelation (in the sense of our understanding of the universe in which we live) have come on a bit in the last 2,000 years. If you consider biblical stories such as the age of the Earth, humankind all being direct descendants of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark, there was no hard evidence to indicate they couldn't be literally true until relatively recently. Today we know better.

It's worth pointing out that this is conjecture and not reality.

There's nothing that we know that nullifies Christian belief in the 21st century. There is nothing that precludes Christian belief in Jesus Christ. That is why Christianity remains and actually is advancing in many parts of the world today. There is a fundamental arrogance in smacl's position that atheists are somehow the people who know things and Christians do not. It's worth calling that out for what it is.

Christianity provides a cogent worldview which offers real insights into human nature, the presence of evil and the state of our world. The God who speaks provides a cogent reason as to why things exist, and where we are headed. Jesus Christ offers real insights into the deepest problems that mankind faces, caused primarily by our rejection of Him and our insistence that we need to go our own way.

This is why Christianity stands firm in our world. smacl has made this argument with numerous assumptions about how certain passages should be interpreted. For example it is worth pointing out that young earth creationism is surprisingly modern making it's first appearance in the 17th century.

Thankfully we don't need smacl's help in interpreting the Bible. We as Christians can read the Old Testament in light of Jesus' coming and read it as it was intended to be read according to the genre of what we are reading. We can look to those before us for guidance as to what conclusions to draw.

Part of being a Christian means not becoming conceited about what we allege to know and in this case it is alleging rather than actually knowing, rather Christianity is about realising that we fall short and that God is great and that God has spoken and that we can find our identity in Christ rather than in the arrogance of self.

That is why Jesus Christ came into this world in history, we celebrate that in the coming weeks at Christmas. To save sinners (Matthew 1:21, 1 Timothy 1:15). To rescue us from our arrogance and to bring us into right relationship with God. Remember that.

antiskeptic · 15-12-2019 11:21am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I read it, load of what you would expect from uneducated bronze age sheep herders

Whilst I accept that some folk might find it dull that's not to say its not rivetting. You finding as you do can say as much about you as it does it.

It's like me finding Handel's Messiah dull.

smacl · 15-12-2019 11:38am

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The problem is sooner or later a theocratic or secular society arrives at a consensus that jars with your own brand of secular values.

Absolutely. Part of living in a democratic society made with a diverse range of beliefs and core values is dealing with compromise.

The solution is not to keep religion out of gov, it is to morality out of gov full stop. This isnt a hypothetical. There are all sorts of examples.

Never going to work as justice is largely based on morality. So for example we consider stealing to be criminal as it is morally wrong to take something that is not yours. The difference between theocracy and democracy is that theocracy bases it laws on religious derived morality where democracy does so on the basis of the will of the majority, where the two can come into conflict. Recent referendums would be a good example of this.

Dick_Swiveller · 15-12-2019 11:46am

smacl wrote: »

Absolutely. Part of living in a democratic society made with a diverse range of beliefs and core values is dealing with compromise.

Never going to work as justice is largely based on morality. So for example we consider stealing to be criminal as it is morally wrong to take something that is not yours. The difference between theocracy and democracy is that theocracy bases it laws on religious derived morality where democracy does so on the basis of the will of the majority, where the two can come into conflict. Recent referendums would be a good example of this.

That's not necessarily true. There are many safeguards in place in democracies to ensure that there isn't a tyranny of the majority. If the majority of the population decided tomorrow to sanction capital punishment for Gingers, the law would step in and ensure that doesn't happen.

smacl · 15-12-2019 12:20pm

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

That's not necessarily true. There are many safeguards in place in democracies to ensure that there isn't a tyranny of the majority. If the majority of the population decided tomorrow to sanction capital punishment for Gingers, the law would step in and ensure that doesn't happen.

Which law though? In terms of protecting minorities, this tends to come from the international human rights treaties we've signed up rather than our local government. Given that homosexuality was only decriminalised in Ireland in 1993, the tyranny of the majority has been demonstrably enforced until quite recently.

antiskeptic · 15-12-2019 2:30pm

smacl wrote: »

Which law though? In terms of protecting minorities, this tends to come from the international human rights treaties we've signed up rather than our local government. Given that homosexuality was only decriminalised in Ireland in 1993, the tyranny of the majority has been demonstrably enforced until quite recently.

And if the local government unsigned themselves from those treaties? I don't see how 'rather' works.

A bit like self (local government) submitting to a higher authority because it decides to do so. Rendering local government the higher authority

antiskeptic · 15-12-2019 2:34pm

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

That's not necessarily true. There are many safeguards in place in democracies to ensure that there isn't a tyranny of the majority. If the majority of the population decided tomorrow to sanction capital punishment for Gingers, the law would step in and ensure that doesn't happen.

If the majority decided so, they would vote in politicians to do their bidding. And since the judiciary are politically nominated and appointed. Take the US where the judiciary can be rendered blue or red.

It would take time to wash through, but ultimately democracy would establish whatever it wanted to. Including what some might consider a tyranny.

There are no exterior protections

Is our faith the only thing that is not protected

Comments